[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NUTCH-1109?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13115832#comment-13115832
]
Lewis John McGibbney commented on NUTCH-1109:
---------------------------------------------
OK I have a solution for this. As I am working towards a pretty monumental
addition to our JUnit tests, I feel that a tool like Sonar (which would replace
PMD code checks) would greatly benefit the usefulness, quality and value of our
existing and proposed JUnit test cases. Having been in touch with the guys at
builds@ I have been advised to make a commit with the above sonar target patch
in our build.xml file. This will then enable the builds team to set up an
analysis for our nightly build here [1].
Does anyone have comments for this or any objections to a JUnit development
drive? Thank you
[1] https://analysis.apache.org/
> Add Sonar targets to Ant build.xml
> ----------------------------------
>
> Key: NUTCH-1109
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NUTCH-1109
> Project: Nutch
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: build
> Affects Versions: 1.4, 2.0
> Reporter: Lewis John McGibbney
> Assignee: Lewis John McGibbney
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: build
> Fix For: 1.4, 2.0
>
> Attachments: NUTCH-1109-branch-1.4-20110910.patch,
> sonar-ant-task-1.1.jar
>
>
> Sonar [1] is an open platform to manage code quality. I was experimenting
> today with what kind of analysis it allows us to do on a given codebase and
> was pleasantly surprised with the results. For details on the documentation
> please see here [2]. It can be easily integrated into our ant build.xml and
> is an easy way to explicitly identify latent areas of code which we could
> possibly improve upon.
> At this stage I wish to highlight some of my statistics in findings...
> Running Sonar via the attached patch identifies (based upon the analysis
> rules from Sonar) that the Branch-1.4 codebase contains issues as follows
> {code}
> Critical 28
> Major 1,231
> Minor 356
> Info 119
> {code}
> These range from a catch statement being identified in o.a.n.crawl.Generator
> which shouldn't be catching throwable since it includes errors, through to
> trivial issues such as nested statements which could be combined in the same
> class.
> Although on the face of it, this seems an excellent way to make code more
> consistent across the board, which may in turn lead to 'better' code, I am by
> no way saying that this is a step we should move towards without thinking it
> through and discussing at length. I also think that there needs to be a good
> deal of our own judgement to decide whether any issues flagged up by Sonar
> should be marked as false positives.
> To conclude I would like to add that I onl decided to open this issue in an
> attempt to gauge peoples views on the direction it takes us in.
> [1] http://www.sonarsource.org/
> [2] http://docs.codehaus.org/display/SONAR/Documentation
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
